A few questions

[Adrian Thompson]

Hi folks, new to SAAB’s and I have some questions. I’m getting to the time in life where I may have the spare time and $$’s to get a cheap toy car again. In the past I’ve raced, autocrossed and hillclimbed a variety of cars. (Opel Manta, Mustang, 323GTX, Miata, Fiesta). Now the kids are 11 and 17 I hope that next year a new toy is on the horizon again. Up to now I’ve been thinking another Miata, an E30, XR4ti, Rx7 or similar. Then after watching Top Gear’s tribute to SAAB a couple of weeks ago the thought of a 900 turbo is hovering in my mind. Growing up in England 900 Aero’s were always on my radar as way cool, but unaffordable cars when I was a teen. Now, they seem cheap, if not overly plentiful. They also have the massive advantage of a magic spinning snail already attached to the side and spinning snails normally equal relatively easy hp increase.

From my reading over the last couple of weeks makes me believe the following.
1. Started in 79 with 143 hp
2. 86 16v head added for 160 hp
3. 87 received 9000 hubs and brakes.
To me that means the ideal starting point for a project is any 87 up manual transmission.

What I’m interested in for a car is a fun track/autocross car that is still comfortable enough to drive daily on occasions in the summer. It can’t be rock had or slammed. It must look relatively stock and be a bit of a Q ship. From previous cars and projects in the past I’ve learned the lesson the hard (read expen$ive) way that the closer to stock you stay, the more you enjoy and get to use the car.

I’ve got a few questions though.

1. Are there other major changes I’ve missed above?
2. How strong is the transmission? And why do people talk about adding steel side covers? Is this a major/expensive/necessary upgrade?
3. What is the normal wheel tire upgrade rout? 15x7 with 225 tires?
4. What is the normal ‘cheap’ and reliable upgrade path for the engine?
5. How far can you take the stock turbo and management system?
6. What is available in the way of LSD’s? This seems to be one of the biggest issues to me, especially for a FWD platform. Miata’s and E30’s are easy to find with an LSD and that is massively important for autocross use.
7. How bad is rust an issue? I live in Michigan and while the car wouldn’t see much salt in my ownership, finding a non-crusty 20-30 year old car is always going to be an issue within 300 miles of here.
8. What glaring issues or benefits am I missing?

The big advantage I see of a 900 turbo compared to the Miata or E30 is lower buy in price and easier hp increases due to the turbo. The disadvantage I see is that Miata’s and E30’s come with an LSD and cheap. Light, good-looking 15X7 wheels can be found for around $100 per corner. Coincidentally the XR4ti seems to have many of the same advantages/disadvantages as the 900 Turbo although it is RWD. It’s also not as good looking especialy when I grew up with Sierra Cosworth’s, the XR4ti is a bit of an ugly duckling in comparison. The Saab is also much better looking.

[Crazyswede]

From my reading over the last couple of weeks makes me believe the following.
1. Started in 79 with 143 hp
2. 86 16v head added for 160 hp
3. 87 received 9000 hubs and brakes.
To me that means the ideal starting point for a project is any 87 up manual transmission.

The great thing about Saab 900's is that the body shell and mount points are pretty much the same from 1979 all the way through 1993. soo if you find a nice clean 1983 900 you can swap in the driveline from a later car....The earlier cars were all CIS injection unless you find one of the odd carbed cars. If you put a later 16v motor into a CIS car you will have to swap wiring harness or install adapters for the CIS. The hubs swap easily from the older to the newer and the rear hubs swap with an axle swap. Even if you find an automatic its not that hard to swap in a 5 speed and convert the car...all of the mounts and hole are already there for the pedals etc.



What I’m interested in for a car is a fun track/autocross car that is still comfortable enough to drive daily on occasions in the summer. It can’t be rock had or slammed. It must look relatively stock and be a bit of a Q ship. From previous cars and projects in the past I’ve learned the lesson the hard (read expen$ive) way that the closer to stock you stay, the more you enjoy and get to use the car.

I’ve got a few questions though.

1. Are there other major changes I’ve missed above?
There were many little changes but the later 16v non turbo cars were 2.1 blocks which were known to have some head gasket issues due to problems with corrosion around one of the water jackets on the block...they are usualy fixable and offer a little more power over the 2.0 engines. The 85 16v engines used a different set of cams and slightly different pistons...so if you put an 85 head on a later car the compression ratio will go up.

2. How strong is the transmission? And why do people talk about adding steel side covers? Is this a major/expensive/necessary upgrade?
The transmissions are a lot stronger then the bad rep would make you think. The problem is that these transmissions don't hold up well to 6000 rpm clutch drops and 22 psi of boost in 1st and second gear. If you shift smoothly and accelerate wisely the gearboxes will hold up. If you drive like a 16 year old kid and launch the car non stop you will launch the gearbox too

3. What is the normal wheel tire upgrade rout? 15x7 with 225 tires?
No sure what the autocross preference is but most people running road cars will run 195's on the stock 15x5.5" rims or as high as a 205

4. What is the normal ‘cheap’ and reliable upgrade path for the engine?
Less restrictive intake filter and on the turbo bigger turbo pipes. on the 16v non turbos you may be able to find a set of headers, on the turbos move the battery to the back of the car and install a high radius downpipe. Also a nice free flowing cat back exhaust does wonders on the turbos.


5. How far can you take the stock turbo and management system?
250 hp is probably about the limit with the stock LH injection. You can blindly fool the system by running bigger injectors and a rising rate FPR but the system may not be very efficient.
6. What is available in the way of LSD’s? This seems to be one of the biggest issues to me, especially for a FWD platform. Miata’s and E30’s are easy to find with an LSD and that is massively important for autocross use.
Gripper, quaiffe, Selhom, and the original rare as all hell Sport and rally diff. We recently did a group buy on the gripper units which are a clutch pacl style unit. Price was about $1000 when we had 10+ people in on the order.

7. How bad is rust an issue? I live in Michigan and while the car wouldn’t see much salt in my ownership, finding a non-crusty 20-30 year old car is always going to be an issue within 300 miles of here.
be wary of cars with bubbling fender lips...this is a very expensive fix and a bad sign...it can be a lot of work to repair even if you do your self. Also look for rust around the lower control arms in the front wheel wells. Look at the door seams and the underbody seams and the seams at the rear wheel wells. IF the car is an SPG with the SPG body kit look behind the airflow panels for disguised rot.

8. What glaring issues or benefits am I missing?

The big advantage I see of a 900 turbo compared to the Miata or E30 is lower buy in price and easier hp increases due to the turbo. The disadvantage I see is that Miata’s and E30’s come with an LSD and cheap. Light, good-looking 15X7 wheels can be found for around $100 per corner. Coincidentally the XR4ti seems to have many of the same advantages/disadvantages as the 900 Turbo although it is RWD. It’s also not as good looking especialy when I grew up with Sierra Cosworth’s, the XR4ti is a bit of an ugly duckling in comparison. The Saab is also much better looking.

[Luke]

I’ve got a few questions though.

1. Are there other major changes I’ve missed above?
2. How strong is the transmission? And why do people talk about adding steel side covers? Is this a major/expensive/necessary upgrade?
3. What is the normal wheel tire upgrade rout? 15x7 with 225 tires?
4. What is the normal ‘cheap’ and reliable upgrade path for the engine?
5. How far can you take the stock turbo and management system?
6. What is available in the way of LSD’s? This seems to be one of the biggest issues to me, especially for a FWD platform. Miata’s and E30’s are easy to find with an LSD and that is massively important for autocross use.
7. How bad is rust an issue? I live in Michigan and while the car wouldn’t see much salt in my ownership, finding a non-crusty 20-30 year old car is always going to be an issue within 300 miles of here.
8. What glaring issues or benefits am I missing?

Welcome,

There were a few more changes along the way then the ones you listed (such as going to an integrated plastic bumper look on 87+) -> 86 are referred to as "flat nose" have larger bumpers. People are generally divided on which is preferred, but I like the earlier style a lot more.

1.Some other changes/notes:

-'85 had some wiring issues with crumbly insulation
-Some 88 and 89 had passive belts (motorized seat belts) these really stink, but luckily it's a bolt in affair to covert to manual belts
-89+ had ABS and larger bearings on transmission
-90+ had airbags

Theres a lot of other small changes year to year, but basically the fundamentals of the car stayed the same throughout the run.

2.
The transmission are strong enough for stock power. The 81-88 ones are not as strong as the 89+. The 89+ ones seems to cope with around 225 HP reliably, much more than that and its a bit of a gamble.
The steel cover helps keep the flex of the gearbox casing down which is one of the major things that leads to failure. They are about $150 or so.

3.
15x7 is the normal "sporty" wheel size with 205/50/15 tires (lots of cheap rubber in this size)
Some people go bigger (17s etc) for a more modern look, but it think keep 15s saves a lot of money and clearance issues.

4/5.
The engines are easy part, the 16V turbo (called the B202) block is bulletproof, they have larger main bearings that a lot V8 engines. The stock engine manangent can be tweaked to about 225-250 HP without too much effort or cost.
Beyond that (or even before that) a lot of people are getting into retrofitting the engine management from a mid 90's SAABs, its a really nice comprehensive package and can be tuned on a laptop with free software developed by the community.

6.
There are 3 different LSD's available; quaiffe ($1300 torsen) gripper UK ($1100 clutch type) and sellholme sweden($2000, clutch type)
All are great options and people on the forums here are installed/used them

7.
The C900 is actually a pretty rust resistant car, the problem is that most of them were sold in areas that are cold and snowy and since they handled terrific in the snow they were driven in lots and lots of salt as well. There are a few common areas to look for rust such as under the passenger side front a-arm mount. There are sheet metal kits available now to patch the whole area up. The best bet is to find one on the west coast and fly out and drive back. But suprisingly solid cars do pop up from time to time in unusual places, as it has a lot to do with previous habits and maintainance.

8.
I'd say go for it, they are a ton of fun and still very reliable and good backup transportation as well. Theres not to many cars that are relatively cheap, look so unique, you can pick up a fridge at home depot with on saturday, auto-x on sunday and then commute to work with on monday if you so choose.

[Adrian Thompson]

Wow, thanks for the reply’s guys.

OK, so while my original premise holds true that the later the cars were the better, there’s really no reason to pass up one of the earlier cars. So here’s some follow up thoughts and Q’s.

What interchanges between the 8v and 16v engines? Would it really be a case of replacing the whole engine or is it a head swap only. From what I’m seeing, the best bet staying with all OEM components is a late 2.1l NA block, 16V turbo head, manifold and turbo with mid 90’s management. It’s amazing that it’s programmable, saving the need to build a megasquirt.

How much stronger / bigger are the later 9000 hubs and brakes?

Gearboxes. I’m long past 16as in over 25 years past 16 (Man it sucks, I remember being my kids age like it was yesterday!) so I’m not into 6k rpm clutch drops. In Most autocross the timing lights are a few feet past the start line so you can roll into the throttle, as long as you’re on boost before you get there. Open track isn’t timed so who cares and there’s no hillclimbs close to Mi, although one day I’d love to head over to PA to compete. I started motorsport in Hillclimbs back in England. I only go to the drag strip once every couple of years, so I’m not too concerned. How much stronger are the 89 up boxes? The steel side plates sound like a good idea one you start increasing hp.

I’ve no interest in 17” wheels/tires. Cars from the 80’s just dong look right to me with large diameter wheels, also they are needlessly heavier and more expensive. What are the option for wider wheels? I think the bolt circle is 4x108(?) if so that would mean some Ford wheels would fit.

If/when I get a car (probably early next year) the intention would be first to fix anything wrong and make it safe and reliable. Then tackle wheels/tires, then suspension and finally power. Ideally I’d like to find a car that doesn’t need everything replaced, which leads me back to the later cars. Looking around some of the projects on here, you guys appear to be able to pick up some amazing bargains for only a few hundred $$’s. I assume that comes from you being in the SAAB community and being know to pick up anything. I’m not seeing cars like this on Craig’s list or e-bay, but now isn’t the time to buy anyway.

I’m not sure I should admit it around here, but my DD is a Volvo C30 that I picked up on European delivery and drover round the Nurburg ring 4 days after delivery 

[Adrian Thompson]

OK, another stupid question.

How important is an LSD with a SAAB? I’ve had various FWD cars and they’ve behaved very differently. My old Focus was in desperate need on an LSD, it would unload the inside front tire and spin it as soon as you even though about applying power. However my SVT Contour, with more power, more torque although heavier was amazing. It could really put the power down well, I even had someone not believe me that I didn’t have an LSD as I could exit the bottom hairpin at Gratton better than they could in the IT CRX with an LSD. The C30 is somewhere in between, if I make use of the massive (relatively) torque from the turbo, sure I can fry in the inside tire on corner exit, but with judicious use of the right foot it not too bad, way better than the Focus, but light years behind the Contour. All my other performance cars have been RWD other than my Fiesta, but that was a race car with an LSD and only 70ish hp so traction was a non issue.

[Jordan]

The best models IMO are the 86-87 turbos. The later cars have lots of extra crap that just gets in the way. Plus the pre 88 bolt pattern gets you better/cheaper brake options plus stronger better looking wheels. The only advantage of the late cars are some of the small improvments to the transmissons which are easily swappable if you do have an issue.

The 9000 brakes are heavy and really only offer some added fade resistance.

As for the LSD, i dont have much to compare it to, but power seems to go down fairly well and evenly. 900 axles are pretty much equal length so torque steer isnt really an issue . However a sudden rush of torque and a light inside wheel is never going to end well with an open diff.

[Crazyswede]

All of the 2.0 litre 16v heads are the same from 1986 to 1993 with only the 1985 head being the oddball. The 2.1 litre 16v head has bigger intake ports and the intake manifold has bigger runners. There are different cams through the years and different cams from turbo to non turbo.

The 8v cars were all CIS injection systems and the 16v cars were all variants of Bosch LH injection so there will be a wiring harness swap for a 16v conversion. You can bolt a 16v head onto an 8v block...you will have to change the crank timing change sprocket over to one for a 16v as the number of teeth are different. 8v engines in stock form are non interference while 16v engines are interference. In 1985 the starter moved location from the lower front right side of the engine (passenger side)..under the exhaust manifold to the upper left side under the intake manifold...a much nicer place for a starter to sit.

[SwedeSport]

Imho the 86 notchback (2door with trunk) is the best place to start. Its a bit lighter and a bit stiffer than a hatchback. plus you already have a 16 valve engine and harness. you can find a rusty or wrecked 89 turbo and pull the motor/rand combo ( assuming they are in decent shape. ) fwiu the 86 900 is the easiest to do a turbo swap with. Plus you already have the early bolt pattern. you will need to source spindles and brakes from an 87 900. The later cars are good too, but got progressively heavier.

I run my 86 900 without a diff. I am putting a quaife into a trans in preparation for a trans swap. I am currently running a set of Saab accessory wheels ( shelby 8 spokes) that I believe are 15x6. I run Kumho ecsta xs 205-50-15. I haze up the unloaded tire every corner. To go autocross , you don't NEED a diff, but you'll WANT one.

You can probably put together enough of a car to get started for around 1-1.5k.

You can have a ton of fun in a relatively stock car. I would start out with a good running car, decent summer tires, a set of Bilstein HD shocks. Maybe upgrade to a lower (much ) stiffer spring.

[Jordan]

True about the notchback being lighter, but they are fairly rare and none of them came with turbos.

Jason i think the 86 would have the correct vented setup already if it was a 16v S, which i thought all 86s were, but I might be mistaken. Or was it 86 turbo only and 87 S+Turbo?

[Crazyswede]

I think it was the 87S and turbo that got them. my 86S did not have vented brakes...not sure about the 86 turbos

[Hans]

I recently looked at two 86 Turbos in the junkyard, and both had vented rotors. (Non-vented on my 86 S.)

Re: 88+ brakes. For track, you can get more thermal mass by running 9000 rotors (you'll need to grind the pads down a bit to get them to fit). In my experience (did this on my 86), 9000 brake swap not worth it, not necessary.

I have a Quaife in one of my cars and I think it makes a pretty big difference. 900T makes lots of torque, spins wheels easily.

Finally, I love my Saabs, but I much preferred autocrossing a Miata. It'd likely be cheaper/easier to go that route than Saab. That said, I've not yet driven a FWD that I preferred to the 900, and the 900 has double wishbones up front. If you like oddball cars and unique engineering, go for the Saab.

---------


PS I know of a 99 track car for sale in Seattle, WA. PM me if interested. I don't know much about it (it's a 79-80 2-door sedan) but I seem to recall it's got a 16V in it already.

[Jordan]

Ah ok then yeah its only 87 S that got them. For autox id actually go with an n/a 16v , but it sounds like you want a turbo!

[SwedeSport]

I believe it was (some later production) 86 turbo, and all 87. My 86 8v has solid rotors as does my 86 16v notchback. I have raided vented setups from 87S and turbos.

All but my 89 sedan have early bolt pattern thus, wheel interchangeably between my cars. Besides, I hate trying to put lug bolts on in the dark. Another big plus is that the classic wheels fit.

Big fan of the early fascia ( flat nose ). Prefer my cars without all the trim, and without the big, bulky bodywork. The real early 900's were very plain (and light). My 86 is a dash over 2500 lb with all the safety gear. It has a cage in it and the majority of the interior still in it. Later c900's crept up over 2800 lb.

Starting in 87, all cars got sway bars too. Come to think of it 87t is probably a good way to go, because all that needs to be done is back date the bumpers and lights.

[Jordan]

You don't HAVE to back date the bumpers. Lol. Funny how everything turns into a project.

Ok really. Best advice i could give is find something clean and drive it. Most of this stuff is pretty inconsequential outside of personal preference. Done. Now go find a car!

[Geoff]

It seems like there's a bunch of excess info in this thread so I'll try to keep my response mostly fact-based. There's also a lot of good information so read the thread through a few times.

1) The 2.1L engine was only a non-turbo engine. It has the block erosion problem. You probably don't want this because
a) you want a turbocharged car
b) you don't want to deal with the block erosion

2) The 2.1L engines do have a better flowing head which you can mount (along with the matching intake manifold) to a 2.0 block to gain some performance.
a) It should be noted that the '94 and up NG900/9000/9-3/9-5 got what is referred to as the "T5" and "T7" (the name of the engine management system) heads. These heads flow better but are not a direct bolt-on. You may see mention of people using these heads.

3) The later engine management system is called Trionic 5 (T5) and can be fitted to the C900 engine & also laptop tuned. It was installed on 9000s/NG900s and 9-3s from '94 or '95ish(?) though '99.

4) The C900 got the later style brakes starting in 1988. '79 through '87 have the earlier style brakes. The earlier style brakes are OK but the later brakes are easier to deal with, plus you get the rear ebrake. The '87 and earlier cars have the ebrake on the front.
a) The bolt pattern for the wheels/hubs and for the brake calipers is the same on '88+ C900s as it is on 9000s but the brakes aren't identical. Some people have put the 9000 brakes on the C900 but as you've probably seen, it isn't really a worthwhile benefit. The stock brakes on these cars are pretty sufficient. Performance pads help.

5) Wheels:
a) Most C900s came stock with 15" x 5" wheels. Some had 5" wide wheels
b) Earlier bolt pattern (up through '87) is 114.3 x 4. I don't know that there is one "go to" wheel in this pattern that are wider, but you can get wider wheels from various wheel suppliers.
c) The later bolt pattern ('88+) is 108 x 4, same as the 9000. Many 9000s came with 15" x 6" wheels stock. 9000 wheels fit '88+ C900s.
d) 9000 Aeros came with 16" x 6.5" wheels (two different wheel styles). Many people fit them to C900s.

6) Limited Slip diffs: With much of the weight above/in front of the front tires, driveshafts being nearly equal length, and the dual wishbone suspension the C900 is capable of putting power down to the ground well without a limited slip by comparison to many other front wheel drive cars. With a turbo, sure you'll get wheel spin and overall you'll have better grip with a limited slip.

*NOTE:
C900 = Classic 900 ('79-'93)
NG900 = New Generation (or "No Good") 900 ('94-'98)

I’m not sure I should admit it around here, but my DD is a Volvo C30 that I picked up on European delivery and drover round the Nurburg ring 4 days after delivery